The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity"
#11
Each of your arguments has a missing premise. :P

I have recommended it before and I shall recommend it again: acquire William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.

By the way, though I would grant that there has been great diversity in the discernment of the natural law, I would also point out that there has been nary a society which has not acknowledged and received it in some form, however distorted. Pretty much every society, for instance, has condemned murder, ie, unlawful killing; what has so greatly varied is the human laws delineating the cases wherein killing is lawful and those wherein it is not, based, as they are, not on rational attempts to apprehend the natural law, but on belief systems conforming more or less thereto. Thus, even in such societies as have deemed lawful cases of killing repugnant to the natural law (because their members believed, for example, that human sacrifice appeased the gods, or that it was a duty to exterminate a certain type of people; or, as in the case today, because they believe that embryos and foetuses do not enjoy personhood), killing in other cases has always been strongly condemned.

Think also of how the Golden Rule has arisen in so many different cultures throughout history.
Reply
#12
(02-20-2010, 01:52 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Each of your arguments has a missing premise. :P

I have recommended it before and I shall recommend it again: acquire William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.

By the way, though I would grant that there has been great diversity in the discernment of the natural law, I would also point out that there has been nary a society which has not acknowledged and received it in some form, however distorted. Pretty much every society, for instance, has condemned murder, ie, unlawful killing; what has so greatly varied is the human laws delineating the cases wherein killing is lawful and those wherein it is not, based, as they are, not on rational attempts to apprehend the natural law, but on belief systems conforming more or less thereto. Thus, even in such societies as have deemed lawful cases of killing repugnant to the natural law (because their members believed, for example, that human sacrifice appeased the gods, or that it was a duty to exterminate a certain type of people; or, as in the case today, because they believe that embryos and foetuses do not enjoy personhood), killing in other cases has always been strongly condemned.

Think also of how the Golden Rule has arisen in so many different cultures throughout history.

Well, interestingly enough, almost every instance of any culture doing away with some aspect of the Natural Law is premised by some excuse to do so.  The same can be said in regards to personal outlooks who let go of some aspect of the Law.  So, in the end, that does nothing but continue to prove the Law.  If even these people didn't have a sense of it they wouldn't have to appeal to some other circumstance as an excuse which allows them to get let off.  They'd just do it without thinking twice.  And no one does this.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)